Basha Rest. fined by NHL

That's true, however why do you think he first put the Habs logo and text and THEN masked it? He had to receive a warning of some sort, and there's very good chances that it came from people who were asking him to take it out...

The fact is the guy very likely thought that what he did was enough and he invested in the add so he didn't feel like removing it altogether, but it likely didn't satisfy the NHL.

It's so easy to take the side of the poor small restaurant owner against the evil big corporation, and that was my initial feeling too, but the more you think about it and analyze the whole situation, the more it seems like he just went too far with how he approached it. It's likely an honest mistake, and I hope that he can manage not to pay the bill and find another deal with them (and that public outing of the whole thing should hopefully suffice to prevent other people from copying what he did).

It's one thing if he just put some flags and wrote "Go Habs Go!" in chalk on his daily menu, it's another to have a 20 feet banner that associates the Habs brand directly to his product.

Article says he heard of... for all we know it may just be a friend who told him he could be in trouble for using Habs logo (hence why he only painted Habs logo) nothing more...

that's your conclusion, but nowhere in the article it says they warned him first, all it says is that he learned, no mention from whom (a cousin maybe ?)...

Yeah, I edited my post after going back to re-read (operated from memory on first post).

That said, even if he learned it from his plumber, he still learned he was doing something illegal and didn't entirely fix it. Then left an infringing sign up for two months, even if it was less blatantly infringing than the original.

So i'm gonna make a company that makes automobile brake pads and I'm gonna put a ferrari logo on it, because you know, I'm a fan of ferrari and that makes everything alright. Seems wrong doesn't it? Because it is.

This guy is no different. Honest mistake? Probably. That's why we all side with the guy. However, it IS wrong. This isn't people siding with the big bad NHL and being model citizens. It's reality. The guy didn't put a habs logo, or go habs go. He put his product, his logo, merged with the logo on the habs and it's trademark. Really, I'm not in law and I've never done a law class, but it's pretty evident whats wrong with it.

The power of a brand is clearly overlooked. For instance, the brand name 'coca cola', according to this article below has a value of 70 billion. It's just a name, it's worth billions!

If I were to host an event and say "sponsored by coca cola" and it would be a success and popularize coke's name even more...however, they aren't sponsoring me and I purchased the supply of coke, rather than got it sponsored. Does it make it right? No. What if I gave away the coke for free, further popularizing coke's image. Does it make it any less of infrigement? Nope. It's not allowed, that simple. Yes, this is a bigger situation, but the fact remains.

We seem to have too much pride for a logo. We defend a habs logo, and anyone going against our passion is EVIL. Well, that logo belongs to somebody. Whether we like to admit it or not. Please, it doesn't belong to the 'fans'. Someone PAID millions for the logo, for that brand. Merchandising rights for habs gear is protected with that purchase. Advertising rights, protected.

Why OH why do they need to protect it?? May seem trivial to some but this is how it works, you want to advertise with our brand, it costs you money. Simple right? Yet, if we allow some guy to use the brand without paying it dimishes the value of our brand. How so? Because everyone else will ask why the **** should I pay when apparently I can use it for free? Really. If someone tells you that you have the option at all times of paying for a specific car, or getting it for free. Don't you think with that option the business and big bad coperation that designs and manufactures said vehicle will lose money and in turn the value in which they can sell their product decrease? I mean, when you're competiting with free...it's a pretty obvious statement to make.

Basha's owner made a mistake, and he was warned, who cares by who, that what he did is infrigement. Apparently whoever warned him, NHL, a friend, a fellow business owner or a police officer got enough fear across for him to actually DO something about it and cover up the logo. Depending on who asked him, it makes a huge difference of course. If he was warned by a friend, and it was an unofficial warning, it seems rather excessive to give a guy a 80k+ fine without giving him an official warning earlier, although, in my limited knowledge, a 'warning' is a good gesture and not a requirement(can someone clear that up?). If he got an official warning from the NHL, it seems rather idiotic of him to try and patch up a mistake rather than fix it. If the NHL or a real authority warned me of a possible lawsuit over a poster, that **** would be down in a hurry. Yet, he decided to try and push his luck(assuming this scenario were the case).

For those saying the habs need to step in, why? They likely told the NHL to reach the guy because they didn't want to be viewed as opposing local business. Either way, the NHL is defending the montreal canadiens brand, the habs would be INSANE to oppose that. Doing so would be suicide. It would throw your copyrights out the window because you're basically suggesting false advertising practice is okay with your brand. In my uneducated opinion, the habs won't even say a word. They'd be crazy to get involved.

I know I'm the only one that finds this completely ridiculous. I hope the Habs org. comes to this guys aid.

The NHL is protecting the Habs and themselves, it would be moronic for them to go against the league. I know it sounds silly to the common fan but if they allow this next thing you know the Habs jersey and logo will be everywhere without permission. For the NHL they have to protect their copyrights.

Article says he heard of... for all we know it may just be a friend who told him he could be in trouble for using Habs logo (hence why he only painted Habs logo) nothing more...

You're right that we do not have clear confirmation on this. However, if your friend just told you 'hey, this might cause you some problem' would you go out and paint over a huge banner that you paid for and just got installed? There's good chances that, like 99% of everyone else, he would've just said 'it will be fine, I'm just supporting the team'.

If his friend is a lawyer and he showed him the exact law about it and that convinced him, well to be fair he knew exactly what he was doing no matter if the advice came from a friend or for the ones that are suing him. But it's much more likely for him to act on it that he 'heard about it' from the same people suing him now.

So i'm gonna make a company that makes automobile brake pads and I'm gonna put a ferrari logo on it, because you know, I'm a fan of ferrari and that makes everything alright. Seems wrong doesn't it? Because it is.

This guy is no different. Honest mistake? Probably. That's why we all side with the guy. However, it IS wrong. This isn't people siding with the big bad NHL and being model citizens. It's reality. The guy didn't put a habs logo, or go habs go. He put his product, his logo, merged with the logo on the habs and it's trademark. Really, I'm not in law and I've never done a law class, but it's pretty evident whats wrong with it.

The power of a brand is clearly overlooked. For instance, the brand name 'coca cola', according to this article below has a value of 70 billion. It's just a name, it's worth billions!

If I were to host an event and say "sponsored by coca cola" and it would be a success and popularize coke's name even more...however, they aren't sponsoring me and I purchased the supply of coke, rather than got it sponsored. Does it make it right? No. What if I gave away the coke for free, further popularizing coke's image. Does it make it any less of infrigement? Nope. It's not allowed, that simple. Yes, this is a bigger situation, but the fact remains.

We seem to have too much pride for a logo. We defend a habs logo, and anyone going against our passion is EVIL. Well, that logo belongs to somebody. Whether we like to admit it or not. Please, it doesn't belong to the 'fans'. Someone PAID millions for the logo, for that brand. Merchandising rights for habs gear is protected with that purchase. Advertising rights, protected.

Why OH why do they need to protect it?? May seem trivial to some but this is how it works, you want to advertise with our brand, it costs you money. Simple right? Yet, if we allow some guy to use the brand without paying it dimishes the value of our brand. How so? Because everyone else will ask why the **** should I pay when apparently I can use it for free? Really. If someone tells you that you have the option at all times of paying for a specific car, or getting it for free. Don't you think with that option the business and big bad coperation that designs and manufactures said vehicle will lose money and in turn the value in which they can sell their product decrease? I mean, when you're competiting with free...it's a pretty obvious statement to make.

Basha's owner made a mistake, and he was warned, who cares by who, that what he did is infrigement. Apparently whoever warned him, NHL, a friend, a fellow business owner or a police officer got enough fear across for him to actually DO something about it and cover up the logo. Depending on who asked him, it makes a huge difference of course. If he was warned by a friend, and it was an unofficial warning, it seems rather excessive to give a guy a 80k+ fine without giving him an official warning earlier, although, in my limited knowledge, a 'warning' is a good gesture and not a requirement(can someone clear that up?). If he got an official warning from the NHL, it seems rather idiotic of him to try and patch up a mistake rather than fix it. If the NHL or a real authority warned me of a possible lawsuit over a poster, that **** would be down in a hurry. Yet, he decided to try and push his luck(assuming this scenario were the case).

For those saying the habs need to step in, why? They likely told the NHL to reach the guy because they didn't want to be viewed as opposing local business. Either way, the NHL is defending the montreal canadiens brand, the habs would be INSANE to oppose that. Doing so would be suicide. It would throw your copyrights out the window because you're basically suggesting false advertising practice is okay with your brand. In my uneducated opinion, the habs won't even say a word. They'd be crazy to get involved.

Just as long as the NHL drops the thing in a few days then ok.
BUT if the NHL actually wants to go to court to get that 89K, well two can play that game.
Basha calls a press conference and in front of National Press right in front of the live camera's, he drops to his knees and pleads his heart out and asks the NHL to not take his business, not force the sale of his house to pay off this dept, not force him to remove his kids from University and start eating from food banks. Trot out his wife and kids and if he has one, a real baby and pleads for his babies life. All live on TV. You want a war well you got one.

round two,, if all that does not work and the NHL still hold to the 89k then the next press conference has Bashra and all his friends burning Bettman and NHl flags while screaming death to Bettman, death to American imperialists and calling for a JIHAD> we have all seen these types of scenes on TV, even women in robes yelling " for what the money?" American Imperialist greed, "Death to Bettman"" Death to America NHL"

You're right that we do not have clear confirmation on this. However, if your friend just told you 'hey, this might cause you some problem' would you go out and paint over a huge banner that you paid for and just got installed? There's good chances that, like 99% of everyone else, he would've just said 'it will be fine, I'm just supporting the team'.

If his friend is a lawyer and he showed him the exact law about it and that convinced him, well to be fair he knew exactly what he was doing no matter if the advice came from a friend or for the ones that are suing him. But it's much more likely for him to act on it that he 'heard about it' from the same people suing him now.

if that was the case, pretty sure the league would have gone from "not comment" to "we warned the guy twice" or something.

It doesn't matter what the business is. It doesn't matter if revenue increased or decreased. It's a pointless topic. So, if I do an advertisement and I pay for it, but don't make any profit, should I get my money back?

C'mon man. Defending the guy is pointless. You can say whatever you want about food, but there's food companies that sponsor the NHL. Yes, they make deals. As a simple example. Pogos used to give NHL jersey stickers. I guess they shouldn't have to pay any rights or make any contracts because:

In my uneducated opinion, the habs won't even say a word. They'd be crazy to get involved.

Word was that Molson & Co. said the first they heard of it was when it hit the news. My (equally uneducated) guess is that they called it in themselves anonymously (well, somebody from their end, I mean).

It doesn't matter what the business is. It doesn't matter if revenue increased or decreased. It's a pointless topic. So, if I do an advertisement and I pay for it, but don't make any profit, should I get my money back?

C'mon man. Defending the guy is pointless. You can say whatever you want about food, but there's food companies that sponsor the NHL. Yes, they make deals. As a simple example. Pogos used to give NHL jersey stickers. I guess they shouldn't have to pay any rights or make any contracts because:

Pogos=food
NHL=sports, hockey.

It's irrelevant in the end.

Not at all, the only reason businesses buy/rent Ads is in hope it will help them increase revenues...

I mean, you think Subways put all that money for RDS to say "cette période est une présentation de Subway" cause they had money to burn and the big boss happened to be a fan ????

Not at all, the only reason businesses buy/rent Ads is in hope it will help them increase revenues...

I mean, you think Subways put all that money for RDS to say "cette période est une présentation de Subway" cause they had money to burn and the big boss happened to be a fan ????

You misread. I'm suggesting if you suck at advertising, you still have to pay the advertising costs. If basha didn't profit from it, it doesn't change the fact he advertised with the habs logo, intentionally or not.

BTW, mcdonalds sponsors the olympics. Do you think any olympic athlete needs mcdees? It's advertising! Regardless of it being food and the other being a sport.

You misread. I'm suggesting if you suck at advertising, you still have to pay the advertising costs. If basha didn't profit from it, it doesn't change the fact he advertised with the habs logo, intentionally or not.

true, but that's where common sense should prevail.

the guy sells Sharwarmas for a living, chances are it doesnt bring him any more customers, not even on game nights.

In such a case you issue an official warning first, give the guy more than enough time to comply and THEN if he doesnt you fine him...

and I highly doubt it's what the league did. They would have been more than happy to tell the press they did everything right (we informed the owner, gave him plenty of time - two months - to comply, yada yada) in this case rather than refuse to awnser the press...

so yeah, it's their right to act the way they did, but all it shows is them being greedy.

if that was the case, pretty sure the league would have gone from "not comment" to "we warned the guy twice" or something.

I'm pretty sure the league and its lawyers, like pretty much any big corporation, has a policy to not comment on anything regarding legal matters it's involved in. They do not want to be asked questions, so they do not answer questions. If they answered to that, then there would be a following question, and if they answered, then another. They do not say a word, let people think whatever they want and don't have to deal with the mess that the press would be. Press is a mess NO MATTER if you're guilty of anything.

I'm pretty sure that they consider (and rightfully so) that it's far less damaging for them in the long run to be viewed negatively for a few days in a local market (no matter how big it is) on a matter that will quickly be forgotten about than to let people use their brand and logos freely in their advertising without acting on it (and maybe they act like that regularly in other cities too and we just don't hear anything about it).

the guy sells Sharwarmas for a living, chances are it doesnt bring him any more customers, not even on game nights.

In such a case you issue an official warning first, give the guy more than enough time to comply and THEN if he doesnt you fine him...

and I highly doubt it's what the league did. They would have been more than happy to tell the press they did everything right (we informed the owner, gave him plenty of time - two months - to comply, yada yada) in this case rather than refuse to awnser the press...

so yeah, it's their right to act the way they did, but all it shows is them being greedy.

I agree that they should've warned him and were still unclear on who did advise him. I think it's unfair to just throw a bill without warning. Well find out details about that eventually. As for greed, if I built a billion dollar business and league through investments and stress and planning. I'd likely protect my copyright as well. Not sure where 89k comes from though.

I'm pretty sure the league and its lawyers, like pretty much any big corporation, has a policy to not comment on anything regarding legal matters it's involved in. They do not want to be asked questions, so they do not answer questions. If they answered to that, then there would be a following question, and if they answered, then another. They do not say a word, let people think whatever they want and don't have to deal with the mess that the press would be.

I'm pretty sure that they consider (and rightfully so) that it's far less damaging for them in the long run to be viewed negatively for a few days in a local market (no matter how big it is) on a matter that will quickly be forgotten about than to let people use their brand and logos freely in their advertising without acting on it (and maybe they act like that regularly in other cities too and we just don't hear anything about it).

Thats what communiqués are for :

We heard of this restaurant having the Canadiens logo two months ago, we sent them a notice asking them to take down the sign since it's illegal to have it (copyright)

the Owner of the restaurant had enough time to comply, we gave him a little more than two months

the league acted that way beacuse we already have businesses sponsoring and buying NHL/Canadiens Ads and it would have been unfair to all of those who spent LOTS of money on advertising us to let another business do the same at no cost.

Haha, the NHL can't just bill someone 89K for copyright infringement. This would have to go to court first, and the judge would determine the amount, if any. Realistically, I'd say the restaurant owner will get a small fine for being an idiot. If it can be proven that he was given a reasonable amount of time and notice to remove the banner.

I agree that they should've warned him and were still unclear on who did advise him. I think it's unfair to just throw a bill without warning. Well find out details about that eventually. As for greed, if I built a billion dollar business and league through investments and stress and planning. I'd likely protect my copyright as well. Not sure where 89k comes from though.

Big corp regularly let go of things like this. Unless you can clearly show the owner is making more $ because of the sign he just put on (ex : you own a sports bar and have a Habs sign, no need to look at the books, it's obvious) chances are that you enforcing your right is a waste of time, money and a very bad PR move...

"The NHL and the Canadien Hockey Club are suing the United States of America for its flagrant use of the Bleu, Blanc, Rouge color scheme in their flag. They are asking for the state of Maine or Alaska, but only if Sarah Palin leaves. Neither Geoff Molson nor Barack Obama could be reached for comment, though Gary Bettman is reported to have said 'Gimme, Gimme, Gimme!'."

Haha, the NHL can't just bill someone 89K for copyright infringement. This would have to go to court first, and the judge would determine the amount, if any. Realistically, I'd say the restaurant owner will get a small fine for being an idiot. If it can be proven that he was given a reasonable amount of time and notice to remove the banner.

I agree with your sentiment. Quite frankly, I'd be shocked if the NHL follows through on proceeding to court. I think the worst case scenario for the business owner will be a nominal out of court settlement as an acknowledgement of his wrongdoing.